This letter report provides preliminary results related to archaeological
investigations conducted at 33 Prado Avenue prior to the proposed development of the area for single-family residences. The intent is to provide an initial document that can be used by St. Augustine Reserve, Inc., for management purposes. The investigation was conducted under the auspices of the City of St. Augustine's Archaeological Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance 89-38). This regulation requires an investigation of those projects that involve ground-penetrating activities and occur within designated archaeological zones (Halbirt 1993; Piatek et al. 1989). The project area for 33 Prado Avenue, which is listed under the City's site file system as BDAC 02-0672, occurs in Archaeological Zone IE. This zone is recognized as containing potentially significant archaeological deposits associated with historic Fort Mose as well as prehistoric Native American deposits (Halbirt and Carver 1992).

Fort Mose was the first free African-American settlement established in what is now the continental United States. The history of the fort consists of two occupations (Deagan and McMahon 1995; Landers 1990): Fort Mose I (1738 to 1740) and Fort Mose II (1752 to 1763). Both fort locations-are within State owned wetland areas and, therefore, are not subject to direct adverse impacts resulting from construction activities. The proposed project area does, however, occur within that area distinguished on the Pablo Castell6 Map (1763) as being under cultivation during the occupation of Fort Mose II (Figure 1). Thus, the possibility exists that the project area will contain archaeological deposits associated with farming activities (e.g., outbuildings and agricultural ditches). It is unlikely that the 100 or so occupants of Fort Mose resided outside the confines of the fort given the violent and tumultuous events that were symptomatic of the era (Halbirt 2002). Fort Mose is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is registered on the Florida Master Site File as 8SJ40.

Numerous prehistoric Native American sites are known to occur along the Intracoastal Waterway (Deagan 1981; Madry, Smith and Whitehill 2001). These sites primarily date from the Late Archaic (ca. 5,000 to 2,500 B.P.) into the historic era, which commences with the founding of St. Augustine in 1565 by Don Pedro Men6ndez de Avil6s. Early to Middle Archaic sites (ca. 9,000 to 5,000 B.P) occur in the region (White

and Halbirt 2002), although not as frequently as later occupations. Most Native American sites in the immediate project are found on small, dispersed marsh islands, a result of rising sea levels that inundate low-lying areas. The site of Fort Mose II is one example of this pattern. The historic site rests atop earlier prehistoric deposits that date from the Orange Period and St. Johns Period (Deagan and MacMahon 1995).

Due to the proximity of the proposed development to both Fort Mose I and Fort Mose II and corresponding historical agricultural activities, a Phase 1 survey of the property was initiated by the City of St. Augustine's Archaeology Division. The intent of the survey was to determine whether any subsurface archaeological deposits were present and whether these deposits were significant to warrant additional archaeological efforts on the property as specified in the City's archaeological ordinance. The survey also provides the basis for determining whether any archaeological deposits are potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, as specified in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, amended 1992.

Methodology

The 7.8-acre parcel at 33 Prado Avenue was investigated by means of a
systematic shovel survey. To facilitate this survey, a 25-meter grid system was laid out across that area of the parcel not within wetland locations (Figure 2). This entailed most of the area around the existing house. The grid system was established along true magnetic north. Shovel pits that measured 30 cm in diameter were excavated along each 25 meter east-west transect line to a depth of one meter. These pits were spaced at 12.5meter intervals for a total of 39 excavated shovel pits.

Results
As a result of the initial shovel survey, an area of buried, low-density shell
debris was found on the property, albeit without any associated artifacts. The shell debris occurs within a brownish gray to brown fine sand that occurs between 15 cm to 35 cm below the humic soil horizon when present (see below). To determine the extent and nature of the scattered shell, additional shovel pits were placed at 12.5 m intervals between the original 25-meter east-west transect lines in one area of the parcel. This resulted in a total of 50 excavated shovel pits on the property.

The archaeological investigation at 33 Prado Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida, did not document any significant archaeological deposits that could be considered significant for further archaeological testing or inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places. What was uncovered were scattered shell deposits (primarily oyster shell with some clam), trace amounts of charcoal, and a light scatter of late 19th-century

artifacts. This cultural material does, however, reflect different uses of the property. The following addresses each of these separately.

Shell and Charcoal Deposits

Although the cultural and temporal affiliation of the shell and charcoal
deposits is unknown, given the absence of diagnostic ceramic or lithic material, their presence is suggestive of agricultural activities. Ethnographic information from various locations around the world indicates that both shell and charcoal were used to enrich soil deposits in environments with low nutrient content. Charcoal can be associated with slash-and-burn (swidden) agriculture. Small charcoal fragments were found in 44 percent of the shovel pits and were scattered throughout the property (Figure 3). The integration of shell fragments has been documented in prehistoric ditches dating to the St. Johns Period in St. Augustine (Jerome 2000) and within garden locations in the colonial downtown area (Deagan 1983) to enhance crop or garden productivity. Shell fragments were found in 32 percent of the excavated shovel pits, with the majority of shell recovered along the southern portion of an elevated area that bisected the property (Figure 3). The median weight for the shell debris was 50 grams.

Two possible explanations exist for the presence of shell and charcoal debris in the project area, provided that both are the result of human activity.' First, both shell and charcoal fragments may be part of agricultural activities associated with the residents of Fort Mose given that the fort is approximately one-third mile southeast of the project area. The Pablo Castell6 map (1763) illustrates the location of agricultural fields in relation to the fort (Figure 1). Evident is that the field system shown on the map either borders on or encroaches into the project area. The possibility exists that the scattered charcoal debris represents the initial deforestation that occurred around the fort not only for initiating agricultural activities, but also as a method of creating a defensive buffer around the fort that limited surprise attacks. This would be similar to the mily quincientos a defensive zone established during the Second Spanish Period (1784-1821). This zone extended 1,500 varas north of Castillo de San Marcos and was land granted by the Spanish government on the condition that it be cleared and planted with low crops for defensive reasons (Adams et. al 1980). Shell deposits may represent a location where farming actually took place. The location of the shell deposit is of interest for it is on high ground closest to the fort.

The second possibility to account for the presence of shell and charcoal debris in the project area is a prehistoric affiliation. Agriculture was a component of prehistoric subsistence patterns along coastal environments, especially during the St. Johns Period

i Although the presence of shell beyond the limits of tidal systems is a certainty for human activity, the possibility exists that charcoal may be a result of natural bums caused by lighting strikes..

(ca. 2,500 to 500 B.P.). Similar to the preceding scenario, the area was initially cleared of vegetation. After awhile, shell was used to enrich soil nutrients as the debris created by slash-and-bum techniques became exhausted. The only evidence for Native American use of the property is the presence of two fragments of fiber-tempered Orange ware, which is indicative of the Orange Period (ca. 4,000 to 2,500 B.P.). The subsistence practices of this temporal designation, however, revolved around hunting-gathering activities and not agriculture (Milanich 1994). The two pottery fragments are from one shovel test pit (No. 9).

Modem Material Culture

In addition to shell and charcoal debris, trace amounts of 19th- and 20thcentury artifacts were recovered from the project area. Although these artifacts were found scattered across the parcel, a majority was recovered in shovel pits situated in lowlying areas. These locations occur primarily to the west of the existing single-family residence and are characterized by soil deposits of fine gray to white sands (Zone B). This soil deposit replaces the brown to brownish gray sand, which contained the shell and charcoal debris and overlaid the culturally sterile yellow sands. A profile of the property abstracted from the shovel pit data shows the relationship of the various soil strata present at the property (Figure 4). Apparent is that the gray to white fine sands occur where the culturally sterile yellow sand deposits drop in elevation, thus creating a swale in the historic topography of the property. Marsh sediments are found at the bottom of the lowest Zone B deposits, which suggests that this low-lying area may have been wetlands.

The presence of late 19th-century and early 20th-century artifacts in Zone B suggests the possibility of recent fill deposits based on soil stratigraphy. The cause of this filling is presently unknown, although one explanation is that it is a consequence of Henry Flagler's hotel construction activities in the mid-1880s. Flagler purchased the Batewell farm, which was in the vicinity of Fort Mose, and "used the dirt ... in filling up the remainder of the Maria Sanchez Creek, south of Bridge Street" (Florida Times Union, February 1, 1887). The possibility exists that gray-white sand deposits found on the property are a result of that activity.

Although the evidence is circumspect, there are some data to support the premise that Henry Flagler's activities altered the historical topography within and around the project area. An examination of the F.W. Dorr map (1860) shows that the project area, which was forested at the time, was adjacent to cleared fields with structures (Figure 5) owned by the Baya family of Minorcan heritage. An overlay of a current U.S.G.S. topographic map onto the Dorr map shows that the location of the historic Baya farm is presently within the tidal marsh environment directly south of the project area. Furthermore, ceramic and glass artifact fragments found within the gray-white fine sand

date to the Flagler era (ca. 1885 to 1913). How Flagler's activities affected the project area is unknown, but if major dredging or soil removing operations took place, then it undoubtedly impacted adjacent properties. The possibility exists that topsoil was removed from the Batewell farm and placed into low-lying areas, such as that encountered in the project area.

Conclusion

Archaeological investigations conducted by the City of St. Augustine at 33
Prado Avenue did not uncover any archaeological deposits that suggest human habitation and/or intensive occupation prior to the present single-family residence. However, those deposits documented (i.e., shell and charcoal debris as well as modem refuse within probable fill deposits) do represent human activities that occurred on or adjacent to the property. This does not mean that potentially important isolated archaeological features are not present, only that the general project area does not contain any deposits that could be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. As such, it is recommended that no further investigation of the property beyond that of monitoring construction activities is necessary. Monitoring will ensure that isolated archaeological features, if present, are documented.

References Cited

Adams, William R., Robert Steinbach, and Michael Scardaville 1980 Historic Sites and Buildings Survey of St. Augustine, Florida. Ms on file, City of
St. Augustine, Department of Historical Preservation and Heritage Tourism, St.
Augustine.

Deagan, Kathleen
1981 Phase I Background Research and Assessment of Historic and Prehistoric
Archaeological Resources in St. Johns County, Florida. Ms on file, City of St.
Augustine, Department of Historical Preservation and Heritage Tourism, St.
Augustine.

1983 Spanish St. Augustine, The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community.
Academic Press, New York.

Halbirt, Carl D.
1993 The City of St. Augustine's Archaeology Program. The Florida Anthropologist
46(2):101-104.
2002 Conflagration and Exchange: The Impact of the Carolina Colony on the
Development of the Eighteenth Century Presidio de San Agustin, Florida. Paper
presented at the 28th Annual Conference on South Carolina Archaeology,
Columbia.

Halbirt, Carl D., and Linnea J. Carver 1992 Documented Archaeological Projects in St. Augustine: An Inventory of the City's
Archaeological Resources. MS on file, City of St. Augustine Planning and
Building Department, St. Augustine.

Jerome, Jocelyn
1999 Site Report, 89 Magnolia Avenue, Williams Subdivision. MS on file, City of St.
Augustine Planning and Building Department, St. Augustine.

Landers, Jane
1990 Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose: A Free Black Town in Spanish Colonial
Florida. The American Historical Review 95(1):9-30.

White, Andrea P., and Carl D. Halbirt 2001 A Preliminary Cultural Resource Assessment of Fish Island: The 18th-Century
Plantation Home of Jesse Fish (8SJ62). MS on file, City of St. Augustine
Planning and Building Department, St. Augustine.